Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

The continuing Dispute between Science & Creationism -by Prof. John Booker,

Expand Messages
  • bookerbooking
    Greetings: Besides academics, my main occupation was in the military. I ve had missions in the Middleast and most other places on this globe; the missions to
    Message 1 of 30 , Feb 10, 2011
      Greetings:
      Besides academics, my main occupation was in the
      military. I've had missions in the Middleast and most other places on
      this globe; the missions to the Middleast demonstrated that neither
      Science nor Beliefs can Prove the Existence of Anything "Metaphysical, "
      because We Live in a "Mortal Dimension" which Cannot Be Escaped from
      until we die....

      Even Then our basic components (matter, elements, atoms) remain
      in the Mortal Dimension, changing their form only as they are
      Assimilated in a Womb as they are encapsulated to Form a new life!

      Contrary to many Academicians, Historians and Religious teachers,
      Judaism, Hebraism, are not Middleast Religions, but were formed
      initially in the Region of Mt. Ararat in Armenia and were carried by the
      Descendants of Adam & Eve to the Middleast via Adam's third son Seth,
      whom migrated to the "Land Between The Rivers, when a Natural Disaster
      struck the Eden, (mentioned as God's Will) in the Book of Genesis!

      Best regards,

      Prof. John Booker






      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Randy C
      ... Randy C: Professor Booker, greetings and welcome to the forum. I would also like to thank you for your service. Umm...you do realize that Adam, Seth and
      Message 2 of 30 , Feb 11, 2011
        > Prof. John Booker:
        > Greetings:
        > Besides academics, my main occupation was in the
        > military. I've had missions in the Middleast and
        > most other places on this globe; the missions to
        > the Middleast demonstrated that neither Science nor
        > Beliefs can Prove the Existence of Anything
        > "Metaphysical, " because We Live in a "Mortal
        > Dimension" which Cannot Be Escaped from until we
        > die....

        > Even Then our basic components (matter, elements,
        > atoms) remain in the Mortal Dimension, changing
        > their form only as they are Assimilated in a Womb
        > as they are encapsulated to Form a new life!

        > Contrary to many Academicians, Historians and
        > Religious teachers, Judaism, Hebraism, are not
        > Middleast Religions, but were formed initially in
        > the Region of Mt. Ararat in Armenia and were
        > carried by the Descendants of Adam & Eve to the
        > Middleast via Adam's third son Seth, whom migrated
        > to the "Land Between The Rivers, when a Natural
        > Disaster struck the Eden, (mentioned as God's Will)
        > in the Book of Genesis!

        Randy C:
        Professor Booker, greetings and welcome to the forum.
        I would also like to thank you for your service.

        Umm...you do realize that Adam, Seth and everything
        and everyone else mentioned in Genesis are purely
        mythical, right?
      • John Booker
        Randy C:                   Umm...you do realize that Adam, Seth and everything and everyone else mentioned in Genesis are purely mythical,
        Message 3 of 30 , Feb 11, 2011
          Randy C:
                            "Umm...you do realize that Adam, Seth and everything

          and everyone else mentioned in Genesis are purely

          mythical, right"?  

                Pro generators of the Semitic Race could have been called by any name.......there is no doubt however that there were Pro generators by Some Name, just as there were pro generators of all the Other Human Races on earth.

                However, the Commentators that wrote in the Hebrew Old Testament simply were Not Interested to Mention Others, not of their Culture.  The original Semites were from a Tribe now called "Haystans", located at the time in Armenia - Mt. Ararat.  that is not fiction!  

               Not is it fiction that Semites came to Mesopotamia via the Tigris River Gorge and eventually Ruled all of the Land Between The Rivers.   It is also "not fiction" that the first Semite King in  Ancient Sumer was Nimrod, a son of Noah's younger son Ham.  (The Ancient City of Nimrud "WADI" is on the left side of the Tigris River . S.)    Interestingly, " Some parallel epics to Genesis" (stories) Exist in Sumerian Cuneiform written from 3100 BCE.

               English Archaeologist & Army Officer Henry C. Rawlinson, did excavations there and disclosed that the "parallels"  include the story of the Great Flood, Nimrod,  and many other "Myths" as you refer to them.   the birthplace of Abraham (Ur)  is mentioned as well as the King Ur Nammu alive at the time of Abraham.  (2800BCE)     I've been there! 

               I spent some time with Prof. John Strugnell, English Archaeologist & Lead Editor of the "Dead Sea Scrolls"   at the (Wadi) Nimrud drinking bourbon on a wood bench.     

          Best regards,

          John Booker    

          --- On Fri, 2/11/11, Randy C <carumba17@...> wrote:

          From: Randy C <carumba17@...>
          Subject: [creat] Re: The continuing Dispute between Science & Creationism -by Prof. John Booker,
          To: creationism@yahoogroups.com
          Date: Friday, February 11, 2011, 11:37 AM







           









          > Prof. John Booker:

          > Greetings:

          > Besides academics, my main occupation was in the

          > military. I've had missions in the Middleast and

          > most other places on this globe; the missions to

          > the Middleast demonstrated that neither Science nor

          > Beliefs can Prove the Existence of Anything

          > "Metaphysical, " because We Live in a "Mortal

          > Dimension" which Cannot Be Escaped from until we

          > die....



          > Even Then our basic components (matter, elements,

          > atoms) remain in the Mortal Dimension, changing

          > their form only as they are Assimilated in a Womb

          > as they are encapsulated to Form a new life!



          > Contrary to many Academicians, Historians and

          > Religious teachers, Judaism, Hebraism, are not

          > Middleast Religions, but were formed initially in

          > the Region of Mt. Ararat in Armenia and were

          > carried by the Descendants of Adam & Eve to the

          > Middleast via Adam's third son Seth, whom migrated

          > to the "Land Between The Rivers, when a Natural

          > Disaster struck the Eden, (mentioned as God's Will)

          > in the Book of Genesis!



          Randy C:

          Professor Booker, greetings and welcome to the forum.

          I would also like to thank you for your service.



          Umm...you do realize that Adam, Seth and everything

          and everyone else mentioned in Genesis are purely

          mythical, right?

























          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Randy C
          ... Why did you use the names Adam , Eve and Seth ? Those names obviously come from the Bible. Are you using them similarly to how scientists refer to
          Message 4 of 30 , Feb 12, 2011
            --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, John Booker <bookerbooking@...> wrote:
            >
            >> Randy C:
            >> "Umm...you do realize that Adam, Seth and everything
            >> and everyone else mentioned in Genesis are purely
            >> mythical, right"?  

            > John Booker:
            > Pro generators of the Semitic Race could have been
            > called by any name.......there is no doubt however
            > that there were Pro generators by Some Name, just as
            > there were pro generators of all the Other Human
            > Races on earth.

            > However, the Commentators that wrote in the Hebrew
            > Old Testament simply were Not Interested to Mention
            > Others, not of their Culture.  The original Semites
            > were from a Tribe now called "Haystans", located at
            > the time in Armenia - Mt. Ararat.  that is not
            > fiction!

            Why did you use the names 'Adam', 'Eve' and 'Seth'?
            Those names obviously come from the Bible.

            Are you using them similarly to how scientists refer to
            'Mitochondrial Eve'?

            > Not is it fiction that Semites came to Mesopotamia
            > via the Tigris River Gorge and eventually Ruled all
            > of the Land Between The Rivers.  It is also "not
            > fiction" that the first Semite King in  Ancient
            > Sumer was Nimrod, a son of Noah's younger son Ham.

            But Noah is a mythical person. There was never a global
            flood as described in the Bible.

            There is no way to know whether or not someone named
            Noah who was affected by a flood once lived. It is
            quite possible that the myth of the flood in the Bible
            started like this:

            A farmer, possibly named Noah, had just built a boat.
            Then when a local flood occurred, he saved his family
            and some of his farm animals on that boat. Then the
            story was greatly exaggerated.

            Many myths are based on an actual event. There really
            was a St. Nicholas who formed the basis for Santa
            Claus.

            When a real event is greatly exaggerated, it is called
            a myth. ALL of the stories in Genesis are myths.

            > (The Ancient City of Nimrud "WADI" is on the left
            > side of the Tigris River . S.)  Interestingly, "
            > Some parallel epics to Genesis" (stories) Exist in
            > Sumerian Cuneiform written from 3100 BCE.

            More evidence that the Biblical flood account is a
            myth. Many people - beginning, of course, with
            Bishop Ussher - have used the Bible's chronology
            to calculate the date for the flood. Most of those
            calculations put it at about 2300 BC. Stories from
            3100 BC could not be about that same event - **IF**
            it had actually happened.

            > English Archaeologist & Army Officer Henry C.
            > Rawlinson, did excavations there and disclosed that
            > the "parallels"  include the story of the Great
            > Flood, Nimrod, and many other "Myths" as you refer
            > to them.

            Yes. In the same way, we would see accounts of visits
            by Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny
            in the US and Canada.

            The fact that similar stories exist in two closely
            related cultures is hardly surprising.

            I refer to something as a "myth" if it is an event that
            never happened. The Biblical flood never happened in
            the same way that Santa Claus doesn't deliver presents
            to all "nice" children on Christmas morning.

            > the birthplace of Abraham (Ur) is mentioned as well
            > as the King Ur Nammu alive at the time of Abraham.
            > (2800BCE)  I've been there!

            Abraham may very well have been real. But the stories
            about the things he did can't all be real. So he is
            a mythical person in the same way that Santa Claus is.

            > I spent some time with Prof. John Strugnell, English
            > Archaeologist & Lead Editor of the "Dead Sea Scrolls"
            > at the (Wadi) Nimrud drinking bourbon on a wood bench.

            That sounds like an interesting discussion, but the
            book of Genesis is still nothing but a collection of
            myths.
          • Zack S.
            No, Genesis is not mythical-not at all. Leave it to a liberal liar to calculate this type of utter nonsense. Creationism and science do not clash. Remember, of
            Message 5 of 30 , Feb 12, 2011
              No, Genesis is not mythical-not at all. Leave it to a liberal liar to calculate this type of utter nonsense. Creationism and science do not clash. Remember, of course, that God created science!!!!! Of course, I have no doubt that you do and are willfully trying to libel the true faith, which hardly is the first example of a liberal doing so, like the way your type tries to portray abortion as not being murder, homosexuality as being natural, and 'safe sex' as being moral and effective, when it's neither (there's no clinical evidence to show that contraceptives work AT ALL against the vast majority of STDs-and even if they did, they would still be immoral). I love refuting lies. More later. In the meantime, beware of willfully-falsely-translated versions of the Bible, set forth by propagators and liars like the individual in question. God's Word is absolutely true-period.

              On Sat Feb 12th, 2011 11:14 AM EST Randy C wrote:

              >
              >
              >--- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, John Booker <bookerbooking@...> wrote:
              >>
              >>> Randy C:
              >>> "Umm...you do realize that Adam, Seth and everything
              >>> and everyone else mentioned in Genesis are purely
              >>> mythical, right"?  
              >
              >> John Booker:
              >> Pro generators of the Semitic Race could have been
              >> called by any name.......there is no doubt however
              >> that there were Pro generators by Some Name, just as
              >> there were pro generators of all the Other Human
              >> Races on earth.
              >
              >> However, the Commentators that wrote in the Hebrew
              >> Old Testament simply were Not Interested to Mention
              >> Others, not of their Culture.  The original Semites
              >> were from a Tribe now called "Haystans", located at
              >> the time in Armenia - Mt. Ararat.  that is not
              >> fiction!
              >
              >Why did you use the names 'Adam', 'Eve' and 'Seth'?
              >Those names obviously come from the Bible.
              >
              >Are you using them similarly to how scientists refer to
              >'Mitochondrial Eve'?
              >
              >> Not is it fiction that Semites came to Mesopotamia
              >> via the Tigris River Gorge and eventually Ruled all
              >> of the Land Between The Rivers.  It is also "not
              >> fiction" that the first Semite King in  Ancient
              >> Sumer was Nimrod, a son of Noah's younger son Ham.
              >
              >But Noah is a mythical person. There was never a global
              >flood as described in the Bible.
              >
              >There is no way to know whether or not someone named
              >Noah who was affected by a flood once lived. It is
              >quite possible that the myth of the flood in the Bible
              >started like this:
              >
              >A farmer, possibly named Noah, had just built a boat.
              >Then when a local flood occurred, he saved his family
              >and some of his farm animals on that boat. Then the
              >story was greatly exaggerated.
              >
              >Many myths are based on an actual event. There really
              >was a St. Nicholas who formed the basis for Santa
              >Claus.
              >
              >When a real event is greatly exaggerated, it is called
              >a myth. ALL of the stories in Genesis are myths.
              >
              >> (The Ancient City of Nimrud "WADI" is on the left
              >> side of the Tigris River . S.)  Interestingly, "
              >> Some parallel epics to Genesis" (stories) Exist in
              >> Sumerian Cuneiform written from 3100 BCE.
              >
              >More evidence that the Biblical flood account is a
              >myth. Many people - beginning, of course, with
              >Bishop Ussher - have used the Bible's chronology
              >to calculate the date for the flood. Most of those
              >calculations put it at about 2300 BC. Stories from
              >3100 BC could not be about that same event - **IF**
              >it had actually happened.
              >
              >> English Archaeologist & Army Officer Henry C.
              >> Rawlinson, did excavations there and disclosed that
              >> the "parallels"  include the story of the Great
              >> Flood, Nimrod, and many other "Myths" as you refer
              >> to them.
              >
              >Yes. In the same way, we would see accounts of visits
              >by Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny
              >in the US and Canada.
              >
              >The fact that similar stories exist in two closely
              >related cultures is hardly surprising.
              >
              >I refer to something as a "myth" if it is an event that
              >never happened. The Biblical flood never happened in
              >the same way that Santa Claus doesn't deliver presents
              >to all "nice" children on Christmas morning.
              >
              >> the birthplace of Abraham (Ur) is mentioned as well
              >> as the King Ur Nammu alive at the time of Abraham.
              >> (2800BCE)  I've been there!
              >
              >Abraham may very well have been real. But the stories
              >about the things he did can't all be real. So he is
              >a mythical person in the same way that Santa Claus is.
              >
              >> I spent some time with Prof. John Strugnell, English
              >> Archaeologist & Lead Editor of the "Dead Sea Scrolls"
              >> at the (Wadi) Nimrud drinking bourbon on a wood bench.
              >
              >That sounds like an interesting discussion, but the
              >book of Genesis is still nothing but a collection of
              >myths.
              >
              >
            • John Booker
              ... Randy:  Q.                   Why did you use the names Adam , Eve and Seth ? Those names obviously come from the Bible .  J.B. 
              Message 6 of 30 , Feb 12, 2011
                --- On Sat, 2/12/11, Randy C <carumba17@...> wrote:
                Randy:  Q. 
                                
                "Why did you use the names 'Adam', 'Eve' and 'Seth'?

                Those names obviously come from the Bible".  J.B.  Yes the names Adam & Eve are from the O.T. but I disagree that they are Mythical, They are names from the Hebrews' "Oral History" Period  set in their Culture long before the Old Testament was written circa 458 BCE. 
                                                             ________________ 
                 R.
                        Q     Are you using  them similarly to how scientists refer to

                'Mitochondrial Eve'?J.B.   A.  You could say that although I don't agree with the Concept of      a  'Mitochondrial Eve.  
                       That Concept was first described by Archeologists Louis & Mary Leakey, referring to their - "find - dig"  in the Olduvial Gorge.  Since that time the issue of "Pangaea" has been found to be More Relevant, than any "find-dig- Location"  and the idea of One Common Ancestor for All Humans is Patently Ridiculous, given their different Body Styles, Sizes,   head formations and different statures.
                R. Q:           
                              
                But Noah is a mythical person. There was never a global
                 
                flood as described in the Bible. 
                                                               ______________J. B. A.    Noah as with a few other Genesis names was another Oral History Name, set in their Culture since Before 3100 BCE    (invented writing period)  When the Exiled Judaic Priests wrote the O.T. they used  names from the Hebrew's "Oral History" to give "authenticity" to their efforts,  writing Judaic History.
                      The undisputed history of all Semites, includes a period of their original Homes at Mt. Ararat & Armenia, that is the Region where they all were First Known.    
                                                                     ___________ 
                R.Q.               



                There is no way to know whether or not someone named

                Noah who was affected by a flood once lived. It is

                quite possible that the myth of the flood in the Bible

                started like this:J.B. A.   There was a Great Flood in Mesopotamia (provably)   But the issue of whether it was World wide is not valid.  (it probably wasn't)  Most writers of the time didn't know of any World but "their own" ...so they referred to anything that happened as Worldwide. R. Q.



                A farmer, possibly named Noah, had just built a boat.

                Then when a local flood occurred, he saved his family

                and some of his farm animals on that boat. Then the

                story was greatly exaggerated.J.B. A.   I agree with you about this  (supra) R. Q.   Many myths are based on an actual event. There really

                was a St. Nicholas who formed the basis for Santa

                Claus.   When a real event is greatly exaggerated, it is called

                a myth.   . "ALL of the stories in Genesis are myths" , Not if they are substantiated by other writings, and in Cuneiform.   J.B.  



                R. Q.  More evidence that the Biblical flood account is a

                myth. Many people - beginning, of course, with

                Bishop Ussher - have used the Bible's chronology

                to calculate the date for the flood. Most of those

                calculations put it at about 2300 BC. Stories from

                3100 BC could not be about that same event - **IF**

                it had actually happened.J.B. A.



                > English Archaeologist & Army Officer Henry C.

                > Rawlinson, did excavations there and disclosed that

                > the "parallels"  include the story of the Great

                > Flood, Nimrod, and many other "Myths" as you refer

                > to them.R. Q. Yes. In the same way, we would see accounts of visits

                by Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny

                in the US and Canada.   JB.A  All those were  18th C. Cultural Inventions, having Nothing to do with Judaism-Hebraism or any Religious observations.   Your conclusion  (infra) is not justified.


                  I refer to something as a "myth" if it is an event that

                never happened. The Biblical flood never happened in

                the same way that Santa Claus doesn't deliver presents

                to all "nice" children on Christmas morning.
                R.Q. Abraham may very well have been real. But the stories

                about the things he did can't all be real. So he is

                a mythical person in the same way that Santa Claus is.  J.B. A. Not a justified conclusion....Santa Claus & the Tooth Fairy are 18th Century Cultural Inventions.  



                R. Q. That sounds like an interesting discussion, but the

                book of Genesis is still nothing but a collection of

                myths.  J.B. A.  read my answers (supra)  I don't agree with you on  this point....   I do not Suggest to you that I believe in any "Religious Construct" of the Bible, but its Value as a Historical Document is undeniable by Academic standards.   (If one knows how to read it)

                Best regards, 
                John Booker











                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • John Booker
                Randy:               To let you know, I m not religious at all ....i.e there is No Adequate Information to Justify Having a Religion   nor can
                Message 7 of 30 , Feb 12, 2011
                  Randy:
                                To let you know, "I'm not religious at all" ....i.e there is No Adequate Information to Justify Having a Religion"  nor can Such Information Be Gained Inside  our Mortal Dimension.  BUT the "Big Bang" Concoction is just an Academic Cop Out.  (No Brainer)   I suppose Academia must say Something to Cover their Unknowns...   

                  Regards,

                  John  Booker  















                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Randy C
                  ... Randy C: The Big Bang is FAR from a cop out . It makes numerous testable hypotheses, all of which have been confirmed. Here s a short list of the
                  Message 8 of 30 , Feb 13, 2011
                    > John Booker:
                    > Randy:
                    > To let you know, "I'm not religious at all" ....i.e
                    > there is No Adequate Information to Justify Having a
                    > Religion"  nor can Such Information Be Gained Inside 
                    > our Mortal Dimension.  BUT the "Big Bang" Concoction
                    > is just an Academic Cop Out.  (No Brainer)   I suppose
                    > Academia must say Something to Cover their Unknowns...   

                    Randy C:
                    The Big Bang is FAR from a "cop out". It makes numerous
                    testable hypotheses, all of which have been confirmed.

                    Here's a short list of the scientific evidence that confirms
                    the Big Bang:

                    a) Large-scale homogeneity
                    b) Hubble diagram
                    c) Abundances of light elements
                    d) Existence of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
                    e) Fluctuations in the CMBR
                    f) Large-scale structure of the universe
                    g) Age of stars
                    h) Evolution of galaxies
                    i) Time dilation in supernova brightness curves
                    j) Tolman tests
                    k) Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect
                    l) Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect
                    m) Dark Matter
                    n) Dark Energy
                    z) Consistency

                    See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html
                    for more details.
                  • Randy C
                    ... Randy C: Since the original source is from so long ago, the likelihood that they are mythical increases rather than decreases. The older a story is, the
                    Message 9 of 30 , Feb 13, 2011
                      >> Randy:                
                      >> "Why did you use the names 'Adam', 'Eve' and 'Seth'?

                      >> Those names obviously come from the Bible". 

                      > J.B.  Yes the names Adam & Eve are from the O.T. but
                      > I disagree that they are Mythical, They are names
                      > from the Hebrews' "Oral History" Period  set in their
                      > Culture long before the Old Testament was written circa
                      > 458 BCE. 

                      Randy C:
                      Since the original source is from so long ago, the
                      likelihood that they are mythical increases rather
                      than decreases.

                      The older a story is, the more likely it is that people
                      have added to it.

                      >> Q Are you using  them similarly to how scientists refer to
                      >> 'Mitochondrial Eve'?

                      > J.B.  
                      > A. You could say that although I don't agree with the
                      > Concept of a 'Mitochondrial Eve.

                      Then you know nothing about mitochondrial DNA.
                       
                      > That Concept was first described by Archeologists
                      > Louis & Mary Leakey, referring to their - "find - dig"
                      >  in the Olduvial Gorge. 

                      Hardly.

                      Wikipedia describes Mitochondrial Eve at
                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve. There is
                      not a single reference to the name 'Leakey". Apparently
                      I was correct when I said that you DON'T know anything
                      about mitochondrial DNA.

                      > Since that time the issue of "Pangaea" has been found
                      > to be More Relevant...

                      The one thing having absolutely NOTHING to do with the
                      other.

                      > ...than any "find-dig- Location"  and the idea of One
                      > Common Ancestor for All Humans is Patently Ridiculous,
                      > given their different Body Styles, Sizes, head
                      > formations and different statures.

                      Actually all humans have a common ancestor.

                      Going further back, all mammals have a common ancestor.

                      Going even further back, all vertebrates have a common
                      ancestor.

                      Going back to the "beginning", all life on Earth shares
                      a common ancestor.

                      >> R. Q:                          
                      >> But Noah is a mythical person. There was never a global 
                      >> flood as described in the Bible. 

                      That was NOT a question. Instead it was a statement of
                      fact.

                      > A. Noah as with a few other Genesis names was another
                      > Oral History Name, set in their Culture since Before
                      > 3100 BCE (invented writing period)...

                      Meaning that he was mythical. Noah is nothing but a name.
                      It wasn't a real person.

                      > When the Exiled Judaic Priests wrote the O.T. they used
                      > names from the Hebrew's "Oral History" to give
                      >"authenticity" to their efforts,  writing Judaic History.

                      Showing, therefore, that the people in the stories are
                      merely mythical.

                      Right?

                      Maybe the names were real (I have no reason to doubt that
                      someone named 'Noah' once existed). But the stories in
                      the Bible are clearly myths.

                      > The undisputed history of all Semites, includes a period
                      > of their original Homes at Mt. Ararat & Armenia, that is
                      > the Region where they all were First Known.    

                      So what?

                      The book of Genesis contains nothing but myths. Your
                      answers don't even address that undeniable fact.

                      >> R.Q. 

                      No. It is NOT a questioon. It is a statement. I have no
                      idea why you would call it a question. Even the punctuation
                      says otherwise. There are no question marks at the end of
                      the sentences.

                      > There is no way to know whether or not someone named
                      > Noah who was affected by a flood once lived. It is
                      > quite possible that the myth of the flood in the Bible
                      > started like this:

                      > J.B. A. There was a Great Flood in Mesopotamia (provably)

                      True. The Black Sea was formed from such a flood.

                      But the Bible speaks of a GLOBAL flood. Your comment
                      actually supports what I am saying rather than disputing
                      it.

                      > But the issue of whether it was World wide is not valid.
                      > (it probably wasn't) 

                      There is no "probably". It is sufficient to say that "it
                      wasn't".

                      > Most writers of the time didn't know of any World but
                      > "their own" ...so they referred to anything that
                      > happened as Worldwide. 

                      True, reinforcing what I was saying.

                      >> R. Q.

                      Yet again, this is NOT a question.

                      >> A farmer, possibly named Noah, had just built a boat.
                      >> Then when a local flood occurred, he saved his family
                      >> and some of his farm animals on that boat. Then the
                      >> story was greatly exaggerated.

                      > J.B. A.

                      I'm confused as to why you call things 'answers' when
                      there are no questions associated with them.

                      > I agree with you about this  (supra) 

                      >> R. Q. 

                      Again, I have no idea why you persist in calling clear
                      and undeniable statements questions.

                      >> Many myths are based on an actual event. There really
                      >> was a St. Nicholas who formed the basis for Santa
                      >> Claus. When a real event is greatly exaggerated, it
                      >> is called a myth.

                      > "ALL of the stories in Genesis are myths" , Not if
                      > they are substantiated by other writings, and in
                      > Cuneiform.

                      Physical evidence would make them non-myths. I can't
                      count the number of stories that discuss Santa Claus.

                      Santa Claus is still a myth.  

                      >> R.
                      >> More evidence that the Biblical flood account is a
                      >> myth. Many people - beginning, of course, with
                      >> Bishop Ussher - have used the Bible's chronology
                      >> to calculate the date for the flood. Most of those
                      >> calculations put it at about 2300 BC. Stories from
                      >> 3100 BC could not be about that same event - **IF**
                      >> it had actually happened.J.B. A.

                      >> ...
                      >> Yes. In the same way, we would see accounts of visits
                      >> by Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny
                      >> in the US and Canada.

                      > All those were  18th C. Cultural Inventions, having
                      > Nothing to do with Judaism-Hebraism or any Religious
                      > observations.   Your conclusion  (infra) is not justified.

                      On the contrary, it is quite justified. It shows that
                      similar and geographically related societies often share
                      the same mythical stories.

                      >> I refer to something as a "myth" if it is an event that
                      >> never happened. The Biblical flood never happened in
                      >> the same way that Santa Claus doesn't deliver presents
                      >> to all "nice" children on Christmas morning.

                      >> Abraham may very well have been real. But the stories
                      >> about the things he did can't all be real. So he is
                      >> a mythical person in the same way that Santa Claus is. 

                      > Not a justified conclusion....Santa Claus & the Tooth
                      > Fairy are 18th Century Cultural Inventions.  

                      And the stories in Genesis are older cultural inventions,
                      but still nothing but inventions.

                      Again, the older that a story is the more likely it is
                      to be untrustworthy because more people have had an
                      opportunity to add their own little inventive
                      "enhancements".
                    • Randy C
                      ... Randy C: What is nonsense is to believe that the Bible is literally true! ... Science depends on evidence. Where is your evidence? You don t have any, do
                      Message 10 of 30 , Feb 13, 2011
                        > Zack S.:
                        > No, Genesis is not mythical-not at all. Leave it to
                        > a liberal liar to calculate this type of utter nonsense.

                        Randy C:
                        What is nonsense is to believe that the Bible is literally
                        true!

                        > Creationism and science do not clash.

                        Science depends on evidence.

                        Where is your evidence?

                        You don't have any, do you?

                        Therefore creationism and science clash very dramatically.

                        > Remember, of course, that God created science!!!!!

                        ON THE CONTRARY!

                        I have no idea why you would say such a silly thing.

                        Humans created science. Science, by definition, is the
                        methodology humans use to try to understand the natural
                        world. It has evolved over time. The Greeks had a
                        different way of doing science than did Western Europeans.
                        Aristotle considered science to be a form of philosophy.
                        He felt that it didn't need evidence.

                        > Of course, I have no doubt that you do and are willfully
                        > trying to libel the true faith, which hardly is the
                        > first example of a liberal doing so, like the way your
                        > type tries to portray abortion as not being murder,
                        > homosexuality as being natural, and 'safe sex' as
                        > being moral and effective, when it's neither (there's
                        > no clinical evidence to show that contraceptives work
                        > AT ALL against the vast majority of STDs-and even if
                        > they did, they would still be immoral).

                        Totally irrational, totally irrelevant rant noted.

                        > I love refuting lies.

                        You do?

                        When will you refute your first one on this forum?

                        You don't refute statements by sharing utterly irrelevant
                        opinions.

                        You refute statements with EVIDENCE.

                        You have NONE of that to support you.

                        > More later. In the meantime, beware of willfully-
                        >falsely-translated versions of the Bible, set forth
                        > by propagators and liars like the individual in
                        > question. God's Word is absolutely true-period.

                        Totally unsupported assertion noted.

                        Yawn. Typical creationist. You believe that you only
                        need to express a bunch of unsupported assertions and
                        that is supposed to mean something.

                        Hint: it doesn't.
                      • John Booker
                        Randy:              I don t think your list proves anything except mankind s failure to understand. John  Booker ... From: Randy C
                        Message 11 of 30 , Feb 13, 2011
                          Randy:
                                       I don't think your list proves anything except mankind's failure to understand.

                          John  Booker

                          --- On Sun, 2/13/11, Randy C <carumba17@...> wrote:

                          From: Randy C <carumba17@...>
                          Subject: [creat] Re: The continuing Dispute between Science & Creationism - Reply -Prof. John Booker,
                          To: creationism@yahoogroups.com
                          Date: Sunday, February 13, 2011, 2:19 PM







                           









                          > John Booker:

                          > Randy:

                          > To let you know, "I'm not religious at all" ....i.e

                          > there is No Adequate Information to Justify Having a

                          > Religion"  nor can Such Information Be Gained Inside 

                          > our Mortal Dimension.  BUT the "Big Bang" Concoction

                          > is just an Academic Cop Out.  (No Brainer)   I suppose

                          > Academia must say Something to Cover their Unknowns...   



                          Randy C:

                          The Big Bang is FAR from a "cop out". It makes numerous

                          testable hypotheses, all of which have been confirmed.



                          Here's a short list of the scientific evidence that confirms

                          the Big Bang:



                          a) Large-scale homogeneity

                          b) Hubble diagram

                          c) Abundances of light elements

                          d) Existence of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation

                          e) Fluctuations in the CMBR

                          f) Large-scale structure of the universe

                          g) Age of stars

                          h) Evolution of galaxies

                          i) Time dilation in supernova brightness curves

                          j) Tolman tests

                          k) Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect

                          l) Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect

                          m) Dark Matter

                          n) Dark Energy

                          z) Consistency



                          See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

                          for more details.

























                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Alan
                          ... Could you define what you mean by liberal here? Do you mean person who disagrees with my opinions ? I see it bandied around a lot on forums and mailing
                          Message 12 of 30 , Feb 13, 2011
                            --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, "Zack S." <clausen_td@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > No, Genesis is not mythical-not at all. Leave it to a liberal liar to calculate this type of utter nonsense.

                            Could you define what you mean by 'liberal' here? Do you mean 'person who disagrees with my opinions'?

                            I see it bandied around a lot on forums and mailing lists, and contextually it just seems to be lazy shorthand for someone who isn't a creationist/racist/homophobe/misogynist etc. And yet it seems to be pejorative, which doesn't make sense.
                          • Randy C
                            ... Randy C: I don t think that YOUR list proves anything except that people will believe whatever they want to believe. Evidence be damned!
                            Message 13 of 30 , Feb 13, 2011
                              > John Booker:
                              > Randy:
                              > I don't think your list proves anything except
                              > mankind's failure to understand.

                              Randy C:
                              I don't think that YOUR list proves anything except
                              that people will believe whatever they want to believe.

                              Evidence be damned!
                            • John Booker
                              John Booker ... From: Randy C Subject: [creat] Re: The continuing Dispute between Science & Creationism - Reply -Prof. John Booker, To:
                              Message 14 of 30 , Feb 13, 2011
                                John Booker

                                --- On Sun, 2/13/11, Randy C <carumba17@...> wrote:

                                From: Randy C <carumba17@...>
                                Subject: [creat] Re: The continuing Dispute between Science & Creationism - Reply -Prof. John Booker,
                                To: creationism@yahoogroups.com
                                Date: Sunday, February 13, 2011, 9:23 PM







                                 









                                > John Booker:

                                > Randy:

                                > I don't think your list proves anything except

                                > mankind's failure to understand.



                                Randy C:

                                I don't think that YOUR list proves anything except

                                that people will believe whatever they want to believe.



                                Evidence be damned!

























                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Randy C
                                ... Randy C: Mr. Booker, I m not sure whether you intended to respond to my post but nothing came through except for your name. I ve noticed that your posts
                                Message 15 of 30 , Feb 14, 2011
                                  >> Randy C:
                                  >> I don't think that YOUR list proves anything except
                                  >> that people will believe whatever they want to believe.

                                  >> Evidence be damned!

                                  > John Booker:
                                  > [nothing]

                                  Randy C:
                                  Mr. Booker, I'm not sure whether you intended to respond
                                  to my post but nothing came through except for your name.

                                  I've noticed that your posts include a lot of formatting
                                  characters, probably because of the email tool you are
                                  using. One or more of those characters may have inadvertently
                                  cut off your comments.
                                • Thomas
                                  ... Hi, John. Long time, no communication. The last time I saw your name was when you kicked me off your (now defunct) Yahoo group, Allahisamoongod, for no
                                  Message 16 of 30 , Feb 14, 2011
                                    --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, "bookerbooking" <bookerbooking@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > Greetings:
                                    > Besides academics, my main occupation was in the
                                    > military. I've had missions in the Middleast and most other places on
                                    > this globe; the missions to the Middleast demonstrated that neither
                                    > Science nor Beliefs can Prove the Existence of Anything "Metaphysical, "
                                    > because We Live in a "Mortal Dimension" which Cannot Be Escaped from
                                    > until we die....
                                    >
                                    > Even Then our basic components (matter, elements, atoms) remain
                                    > in the Mortal Dimension, changing their form only as they are
                                    > Assimilated in a Womb as they are encapsulated to Form a new life!
                                    >
                                    > Contrary to many Academicians, Historians and Religious teachers,
                                    > Judaism, Hebraism, are not Middleast Religions, but were formed
                                    > initially in the Region of Mt. Ararat in Armenia and were carried by the
                                    > Descendants of Adam & Eve to the Middleast via Adam's third son Seth,
                                    > whom migrated to the "Land Between The Rivers, when a Natural Disaster
                                    > struck the Eden, (mentioned as God's Will) in the Book of Genesis!
                                    >
                                    > Best regards,
                                    >
                                    > Prof. John Booker
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >

                                    Hi, John. Long time, no communication. The last time I saw your name was when you kicked me off your (now defunct) Yahoo group, Allahisamoongod, for no apparent reason other than I asked for you to support your assertions and unsupported claims. I have to ask, why the "Professor" title? When did you get that? As of late 2006, you were simply John Booker, a retired military veteran with a burning hatred of all things Islam. You never once mentioned teaching anywhere outside the military (and military instructors aren't usually called "Professor"). So, what college/university do you teach at, and what subject? It's almost as if you're trying to self-validate your claims and drum up facetious support for your claims with that.

                                    Or is this another one of your "PsyOps" gambits from your military days? Did you once pretend to be a Professor to infiltrate some Muslim terrorist training school? :)

                                    Are you still violently opposed to Muslims and Arabs? As I recall, you were quite vocal about it a few years ago. Oh, yes, here it is. You delisted your Yahoo groups, but the blogs you put up are still there. Like this one: http://gizzard2003.wordpress.com/

                                    You were a blatant liar and fraud 5 years ago, and it doesn't look like things have changed much in the intervening years. Go crawl back under your rock with your pal, Don Tipton, and leave the actual discussion and intelligent conversation to those who are capable and equipped to handle it.

                                    Thomas
                                  • John Booker
                                    Thomas :                                Good to see you have Matriculated to a Lower Slime Pit than the last time I heard from you!     
                                    Message 17 of 30 , Feb 14, 2011
                                      Thomas :  
                                                                   Good to see you have Matriculated to a Lower Slime Pit than the last time I heard from you!      (the same to you)    i.e. I STILL HATE ALL MUSLIMS ....they are ALL Enemies of the USA.  (I'm putting your name on span) 

                                      Regards,   

                                      John Booker

                                      --- On Mon, 2/14/11, Thomas <averylinden@...> wrote:

                                      From: Thomas <averylinden@...>
                                      Subject: [creat] Re: The continuing Dispute between Science & Creationism -by Prof. John Booker,
                                      To: creationism@yahoogroups.com
                                      Date: Monday, February 14, 2011, 1:03 PM







                                       













                                      --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, "bookerbooking" <bookerbooking@...> wrote:

                                      >

                                      > Greetings:

                                      > Besides academics, my main occupation was in the

                                      > military. I've had missions in the Middleast and most other places on

                                      > this globe; the missions to the Middleast demonstrated that neither

                                      > Science nor Beliefs can Prove the Existence of Anything "Metaphysical, "

                                      > because We Live in a "Mortal Dimension" which Cannot Be Escaped from

                                      > until we die....

                                      >

                                      > Even Then our basic components (matter, elements, atoms) remain

                                      > in the Mortal Dimension, changing their form only as they are

                                      > Assimilated in a Womb as they are encapsulated to Form a new life!

                                      >

                                      > Contrary to many Academicians, Historians and Religious teachers,

                                      > Judaism, Hebraism, are not Middleast Religions, but were formed

                                      > initially in the Region of Mt. Ararat in Armenia and were carried by the

                                      > Descendants of Adam & Eve to the Middleast via Adam's third son Seth,

                                      > whom migrated to the "Land Between The Rivers, when a Natural Disaster

                                      > struck the Eden, (mentioned as God's Will) in the Book of Genesis!

                                      >

                                      > Best regards,

                                      >

                                      > Prof. John Booker

                                      >

                                      >

                                      >



                                      Hi, John. Long time, no communication. The last time I saw your name was when you kicked me off your (now defunct) Yahoo group, Allahisamoongod, for no apparent reason other than I asked for you to support your assertions and unsupported claims. I have to ask, why the "Professor" title? When did you get that? As of late 2006, you were simply John Booker, a retired military veteran with a burning hatred of all things Islam. You never once mentioned teaching anywhere outside the military (and military instructors aren't usually called "Professor"). So, what college/university do you teach at, and what subject? It's almost as if you're trying to self-validate your claims and drum up facetious support for your claims with that.



                                      Or is this another one of your "PsyOps" gambits from your military days? Did you once pretend to be a Professor to infiltrate some Muslim terrorist training school? :)



                                      Are you still violently opposed to Muslims and Arabs? As I recall, you were quite vocal about it a few years ago. Oh, yes, here it is. You delisted your Yahoo groups, but the blogs you put up are still there. Like this one: http://gizzard2003.wordpress.com/



                                      You were a blatant liar and fraud 5 years ago, and it doesn't look like things have changed much in the intervening years. Go crawl back under your rock with your pal, Don Tipton, and leave the actual discussion and intelligent conversation to those who are capable and equipped to handle it.



                                      Thomas

























                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • Thomas
                                      ... Glad to see you re just as jovial and kindhearted as before. I notice you failed to answer any of my questions. Why? At least my post had some content
                                      Message 18 of 30 , Feb 15, 2011
                                        --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, John Booker <bookerbooking@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > Thomas :  
                                        >                              Good to see you have Matriculated to a Lower Slime Pit than the last time I heard from you!      (the same to you)   

                                        Glad to see you're just as jovial and kindhearted as before. I notice you failed to answer any of my questions. Why?

                                        At least my post had some content and discussion (along with a few mild ad hominems). Yours is entirely a personal attack and non-substantive response.

                                        > i.e. I STILL HATE ALL MUSLIMS ....they are ALL Enemies of the USA. 

                                        Good to see you're still a bigoted, prejudiced moron. Good luck with that.

                                        > (I'm putting your name on span) 
                                        >

                                        "Span"? You mean C-SPAN? Or something else? Does this go along with your strange habit of random capitalizations and semi-functional caps-lock key?

                                        > Regards,   
                                        >
                                        > John Booker
                                        >

                                        I always like when someone sends an insulting, offensive and attacking post or email, and then puts a polite ending on it. Almost like putting a cherry on a shit sandwich -- it only makes the sender look that much worse.

                                        Thomas
                                      • Zack S.
                                        Notice how Randy makes a statement saying people will believe what they want to believe---- as if his beliefs are logical. He hasn t supported anything he has
                                        Message 19 of 30 , Feb 15, 2011
                                          Notice how Randy makes a statement saying people will believe what they want to believe---- as if his beliefs are logical. He hasn't supported anything he has said.

                                          --- On Mon, 2/14/11, Randy C <carumba17@...> wrote:


                                          From: Randy C <carumba17@...>
                                          Subject: [creat] Re: The continuing Dispute between Science & Creationism - Reply -Prof. John Booker,
                                          To: creationism@yahoogroups.com
                                          Date: Monday, February 14, 2011, 7:36 AM


                                           



                                          >> Randy C:
                                          >> I don't think that YOUR list proves anything except
                                          >> that people will believe whatever they want to believe.

                                          >> Evidence be damned!

                                          > John Booker:
                                          > [nothing]

                                          Randy C:
                                          Mr. Booker, I'm not sure whether you intended to respond
                                          to my post but nothing came through except for your name.

                                          I've noticed that your posts include a lot of formatting
                                          characters, probably because of the email tool you are
                                          using. One or more of those characters may have inadvertently
                                          cut off your comments.











                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        • Alan
                                          ... I notice you didn t answer my question either.
                                          Message 20 of 30 , Feb 15, 2011
                                            --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, "Zack S." <clausen_td@...> wrote:
                                            >
                                            > Notice how Randy makes a statement saying people will believe what they want to believe---- as if his beliefs are logical. He hasn't supported anything he has said.
                                            >

                                            I notice you didn't answer my question either.
                                          • Randy C
                                            ... Randy C: Obviously you haven t noticed that I am an evolutionist. As we all know, there is a MOUNTAIN of evidence supporting evolution. For example, just
                                            Message 21 of 30 , Feb 16, 2011
                                              > Zack S.:
                                              > Notice how Randy makes a statement saying people
                                              > will believe what they want to believe---- as if
                                              > his beliefs are logical. He hasn't supported anything
                                              > he has said.

                                              Randy C:
                                              Obviously you haven't noticed that I am an evolutionist.
                                              As we all know, there is a MOUNTAIN of evidence supporting
                                              evolution.

                                              For example, just picking up one small pebble from that
                                              mountain, how else do you explain the GULO gene in chimps
                                              and humans?
                                            • Alan
                                              ... Can I hazard a guess that his answer would be that it s a consequence of liberalism and faulty contraception? ;-)
                                              Message 22 of 30 , Feb 16, 2011
                                                --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com, "Randy C" <carumba17@...> wrote:

                                                >
                                                > For example, just picking up one small pebble from that
                                                > mountain, how else do you explain the GULO gene in chimps
                                                > and humans?
                                                >

                                                Can I hazard a guess that his answer would be that it's a consequence of liberalism and faulty contraception? ;-)
                                              • Dave Oldridge
                                                ... According to YOU speaking ex cathedra from the Fundamentalist U. chair of wilful ignorance, founded in 1910. ... Watch out who you call a liar. As a
                                                Message 23 of 30 , Feb 17, 2011
                                                  On 12/02/2011 9:06 AM, Zack S. wrote:
                                                  > No, Genesis is not mythical-not at all.

                                                  According to YOU speaking ex cathedra from the Fundamentalist U. chair
                                                  of wilful ignorance, founded in 1910.
                                                  > Leave it to a liberal liar to calculate this type of utter nonsense.

                                                  Watch out who you call a liar. As a creationist, you are promoting a
                                                  movement that is riddled with lies and liars.
                                                  > Creationism and science do not clash. Remember, of course, that God created science!!!!! Of course, I have no doubt that you do and are willfully trying to libel the true faith, which hardly is the first example of a liberal doing so, like the way your type tries to portray abortion as not being murder, homosexuality as being natural, and 'safe sex' as being moral and effective, when it's neither (there's no clinical evidence to show that contraceptives work AT ALL against the vast majority of STDs-and even if they did, they would still be immoral). I love refuting lies. More later. In the meantime, beware of willfully-falsely-translated versions of the Bible, set forth by propagators and liars like the individual in question. God's Word is absolutely true-period.
                                                  >

                                                  Your wilful ignorance is showing. Most scholars who deem Genesis to be
                                                  allegory can read it in the original, or at the very least in the
                                                  Septuagint or the Vulgate.



                                                  --
                                                  Dave Oldridge
                                                  Skype: daveoldridge
                                                  Ham Radio: VA7CZ

                                                  ----------

                                                  Scanned with AntiVir MailGuard v10.0.1.38 AVE 8.2.4.170 VDF 7.11.3.131

                                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                • Dave Oldridge
                                                  ... Damn! You guys keep running up the price of irony meters. -- Dave Oldridge Skype: daveoldridge Ham Radio: VA7CZ ... Scanned with AntiVir MailGuard
                                                  Message 24 of 30 , Feb 17, 2011
                                                    On 15/02/2011 3:00 PM, Zack S. wrote:
                                                    > Notice how Randy makes a statement saying people will believe what they want to believe---- as if his beliefs are logical. He hasn't supported anything he has said.
                                                    >

                                                    Damn! You guys keep running up the price of irony meters.

                                                    --
                                                    Dave Oldridge
                                                    Skype: daveoldridge
                                                    Ham Radio: VA7CZ

                                                    ----------

                                                    Scanned with AntiVir MailGuard v10.0.1.38 AVE 8.2.4.170 VDF 7.11.3.131

                                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                  • Randy C
                                                    ... Randy C: It is utterly preposterous to claim that God created science! You can believe that God created the natural world if you care to, but you can t
                                                    Message 25 of 30 , Feb 18, 2011
                                                      >> Zack S:
                                                      >> Creationism and science do not clash. Remember, of
                                                      >> course, that God created science!!!!!

                                                      > Dave O:
                                                      > Your wilful ignorance is showing.

                                                      Randy C:
                                                      It is utterly preposterous to claim that God created
                                                      science! You can believe that God created the natural
                                                      world if you care to, but you can't believe that God
                                                      created the methodology that HUMANS use to study that
                                                      natural world.

                                                      Even Answers in Genesis agrees with me. On the web page
                                                      at http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/what-is-science
                                                      titled "What Is Science Is?", AIG provides this explanation:

                                                      "Many people do not realize that science was actually
                                                      developed in Christian Europe by men who assumed that
                                                      God created an orderly universe. "

                                                      Note the words "by men". It doesn't say "by God". It says
                                                      "by men".

                                                      So even mainstream Young Earth creationists don't make the
                                                      silly, juvenile claim that God created science.

                                                      Clearly Zack has no idea what science is.

                                                      But Zack seems to be clueless about everything.
                                                    • Eric
                                                      ... Aren t they?
                                                      Message 26 of 30 , Feb 18, 2011
                                                        "Zack S." <clausen_td@...> wrote:
                                                        >> Notice how Randy makes a statement saying people will believe what they want to believe---- as if his beliefs are logical. >>

                                                        Aren't they?

                                                        << He hasn't supported anything he has said. >>

                                                        Such as?

                                                        Eric
                                                      • Eric
                                                        It seems that this post was sent to me privately in error. It is a response from robertburk19 to my last post. I will comment on it later today. Eric
                                                        Message 27 of 30 , Feb 20, 2011
                                                          It seems that this post was sent to me privately in error. It is a
                                                          response from robertburk19 to my last post. I will comment on it later
                                                          today. Eric ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sat, February 19, 2011 3:31:52 AM
                                                          [creat] Re: The continuing Dispute between Science & Creationism - Reply
                                                          -Prof. John Booker, From: robertburk19 <robertburk19@...>
                                                          To:
                                                          Eric opensipapu@... <mailto:opensipapu@...>


                                                          People believe what they want to the extent that they can fashion a
                                                          justification ... however reality places limits on how well the
                                                          justification serves its job, ie to justify ones opinion. Enter science,
                                                          which only accepts beliefs that can be substantiated using specific
                                                          means, and according to defined criteria, eg experimentation.
                                                          Materialism has been the golden boy of atheists and the bugbear of
                                                          believers due to a serious misunderstanding by both parties. Moderns
                                                          believe matter is inanimate. The justification is based on the ability
                                                          of Physics to explain many physical events by assuming that what happens
                                                          have a physical cause. The invalidation of animist beliefs has created
                                                          insurmountable problems. We cannot even explain life. Yet life,
                                                          consciousness and the availability of choice are the three most
                                                          obviously real phenomenons we experience.

                                                          Life is choice. Without choice there is no life with choice there is
                                                          life. Choice repeated consistently constitutes law. There is no
                                                          discernable difference between a choice consistently made and a physical
                                                          law. To possess choice logically requires there be a right choice and a
                                                          wrong one. This demands the existence of God and it also tells us that
                                                          those who follow God act as they ought and those who do not will of
                                                          necessity be acting badly. This actually creates a measureable
                                                          (scientific) difference. So we have a choice because we are alive. We
                                                          can act as we ought according to the moral laws of God or as we will
                                                          based on justifications that do not truly square with reality.



                                                          --- In creationism@yahoogroups.com <mailto:creationism@yahoogroups.com>
                                                          , "Eric" <opensipapu@...> wrote:
                                                          >
                                                          >
                                                          > "Zack S." <clausen_td@> wrote:
                                                          > >> Notice how Randy makes a statement saying people will believe what
                                                          they want to believe---- as if his beliefs are logical. >>
                                                          >
                                                          > Aren't they?
                                                          >
                                                          > << He hasn't supported anything he has said. >>
                                                          >
                                                          > Such as?
                                                          >
                                                          > Eric
                                                          >



                                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                        • Randy C
                                                          ... Randy C: On the contrary. There is NO misunderstanding on the part of atheists. What he is really talking about is science. Science is necessarily, by
                                                          Message 28 of 30 , Feb 20, 2011
                                                            > Eric::
                                                            > It seems that this post was sent to me privately in
                                                            > error. It is a response from robertburk19 to my last
                                                            > post. I will comment on it later today.

                                                            >> John Booker:
                                                            >> People believe what they want to the extent that they
                                                            >> can fashion a justification ... however reality places
                                                            >> limits on how well the justification serves its job,
                                                            >> ie to justify ones opinion. Enter science, which only
                                                            >> accepts beliefs that can be substantiated using specific
                                                            >> means, and according to defined criteria, eg
                                                            >> experimentation.

                                                            >> Materialism has been the golden boy of atheists and the
                                                            >> bugbear of believers due to a serious misunderstanding
                                                            >> by both parties.

                                                            Randy C:
                                                            On the contrary.

                                                            There is NO misunderstanding on the part of atheists.

                                                            What he is really talking about is science. Science is
                                                            necessarily, by definition if you will, all about
                                                            materialism. It HAS to be materialistically measurable
                                                            or else it is not science.

                                                            It might be the truth that Leonardo's Mona Lisa is the
                                                            greatest painting of all time. But science can't tell
                                                            you whether that is truth or not. That's because the
                                                            only components of "truth" that science can help you
                                                            with are those that involve materialistic measurements.

                                                            > Moderns believe matter is inanimate.

                                                            It depends on what form of "matter" you are talking about.

                                                            The moon? Inanimate.

                                                            Barach Obama? Animate.

                                                            They are both made of matter.

                                                            Clearly the claims here are becoming more and more
                                                            bizarre.

                                                            > The justification is based on the ability of Physics
                                                            > to explain many physical events by assuming that what
                                                            > happens have a physical cause. The invalidation of
                                                            > animist beliefs has created insurmountable problems.

                                                            Only among those who are utterly delusional.

                                                            > We cannot even explain life.

                                                            I have no idea what that sentence is even saying.

                                                            > Yet life, consciousness and the availability of
                                                            > choice are the three most obviously real phenomenons
                                                            > we experience.

                                                            Again, totally incomprehensible claims noted.

                                                            Is he saying that we don't know where the first life
                                                            came from?

                                                            If so, he is right. At least we don't know...YET.
                                                            Undoubtedly we will know soon.

                                                            But the other claims make no sense. Most living things
                                                            don't have a consciousness and therefore don't make
                                                            choices.

                                                            Consider plants. They don't have a consciousness. They
                                                            don't make choices.

                                                            Consider bacteria and other single-celled organisms.
                                                            They don't have a consciousness. They don't make
                                                            choices either.

                                                            So, probably 99.99% of all living things lack a
                                                            consciousness and are unable to make choices.

                                                            > Life is choice.

                                                            Roughly 0.01% of life is choice.

                                                            > Without choice there is no life with choice there is
                                                            > life.

                                                            Silly, utterly juvenile claims noted.

                                                            > Choice repeated consistently constitutes law.

                                                            Hardly.

                                                            > There is no discernable difference between a choice
                                                            > consistently made and a physical law.

                                                            Completely ludicrous and nonsensical claim noted.

                                                            > To possess choice logically requires there be a right
                                                            > choice and a wrong one.

                                                            More nonsense noted.

                                                            Even among that minuscule percentage of organisms that
                                                            can make choices, few choices are as black-and-white as
                                                            implied here.

                                                            I choose to say that Babe Ruth is the greatest baseball
                                                            player ever.

                                                            Is that an undeniable "truth"?

                                                            Apparently not! That's because other people argue that
                                                            others were better baseball players.

                                                            So what is the "right" choice?

                                                            There's no way to know in most cases.

                                                            > This demands the existence of God...

                                                            HARDLY!!!

                                                            > ...and it also tells us that those who follow God act
                                                            > as they ought and those who do not will of necessity
                                                            > be acting badly.

                                                            ON THE CONTRARY!

                                                            If you study history, you see that believing that you
                                                            are "following God" makes you more likely to act
                                                            immorally than otherwise.

                                                            Consider the persecution of Galileo.

                                                            > This actually creates a measureable (scientific)
                                                            > difference.

                                                            Silly, juvenile claim noted again.

                                                            Science cannot tell what is "right" and what is "wrong".

                                                            It can only tell what is "real".

                                                            > So we have a choice because we are alive.

                                                            Silly, juvenile claim noted.

                                                            > We can act as we ought according to the moral laws
                                                            > of God...

                                                            Meaning that we are more likely to act IMMORALLY than
                                                            otherwise.

                                                            > ...or as we will based on justifications that do not
                                                            > truly square with reality.

                                                            This is the sort of utterly preposterous and silly
                                                            claims you always read from creationists. Every
                                                            sentence sounds good. But not one of them stands up
                                                            top any sort of scrutiny.

                                                            Clearly rationality is not something that creationists
                                                            are capable of.
                                                          • Eric
                                                            Randy has already responded nicely to this, but I d like to make a few comments of my own, though they will necessarily overlap to a great degree with Randy s.
                                                            Message 29 of 30 , Feb 21, 2011
                                                              Randy has already responded nicely to this, but I'd like to make a few
                                                              comments of my own, though they will necessarily overlap to a great
                                                              degree with Randy's.


                                                              robertburk19 :
                                                              >
                                                              > People believe what they want to the extent that they can fashion a
                                                              > justification ... however reality places limits on how well the
                                                              > justification serves its job, ie to justify ones opinion. >>

                                                              Yes, this is an excellent explanation of exactly why the scientific
                                                              method is so vitally important: People can and do fool themselves
                                                              continually because they errect thought frameworks in order to prop up
                                                              what they WANT to beleive or what they have simply become comfortanble
                                                              in believing. Science demands empirical evidence for things and tends
                                                              to shatter preconcieved notions which do not conform to, as you put it
                                                              "reality." I'm please that at least so far you are mouthing words
                                                              which support the concept of the validity- and necessity- of scientific
                                                              explanations.

                                                              << Enter science,
                                                              > which only accepts beliefs that can be substantiated using specific
                                                              > means, and according to defined criteria, eg experimentation. >>

                                                              Actually, science is perfectly fine with accepting that some aspects of
                                                              reality are simply not well-suited to conclusive scientific analysis or
                                                              experimentation. And as such 'science' is perfectly happy to accept
                                                              beliefs which are outside it's realm. "Science" simply does not claim
                                                              these beliefs to be 'scientific.' Randy's citation of the Mona Lisa
                                                              point applies here.


                                                              >> Materialism has been the golden boy of atheists and the bugbear of
                                                              > believers due to a serious misunderstanding by both parties. >>

                                                              No, I think atheists in general have a perfectly acceptable and rational
                                                              view of the place of 'materialism' in science and culture. A
                                                              methodological materialism is necessary for science. Philosophical
                                                              materialism is a different thing and can take many forms for many people
                                                              and cultures. I think atheists understand all this at least better
                                                              than theists.

                                                              << Moderns believe matter is inanimate. >>

                                                              lol. Really? Show me the survey on this one, would you? Where is
                                                              your correlation study for this point? What exactly IS a "modern" by
                                                              the way? I don't even know what you are claiming here exactly. Do you
                                                              consider yourSELF to be a 'modern?' Are all people alive today
                                                              'moderns?' Seems they should be considered so. Do you believe that
                                                              animals are inanmimate? Do you believe they are not made of matter?
                                                              You need to explain what you're getting on about here a bit more,
                                                              Robert. (Or is it Zack?)

                                                              For the record, I consider myself to be completely 'modern' yet I think
                                                              it would be absurd to claim that matter cannot become 'animate' -almost
                                                              my definition. So it seems, by the empirical evidence before us-
                                                              myself and my beliefs- your claim above is completely false.

                                                              Prove me wrong.

                                                              << The justification is based on the ability
                                                              > of Physics to explain many physical events by assuming that what
                                                              happens
                                                              > have a physical cause. >>

                                                              Of course it is my imperfect understanding that quantum physics has
                                                              pretty much de-linked event and cause, at least at a subatomic level.

                                                              << The invalidation of animist beliefs has created
                                                              > insurmountable problems. >>

                                                              Only for 'animists' -and one does not run into a whole lot of those
                                                              these days.

                                                              << We cannot even explain life. >>

                                                              Depends what exactly you mean by 'explain.' We don't understand it
                                                              entirely, of course, but we're got a pretty good working knowledge of
                                                              what it is and how it works. ...Perhaps not you, personally, but
                                                              Mankind in general. I would suggest that you pick up a basic biology
                                                              text and read it, and then move on to higher level texts if you want to
                                                              grasp more of the hows and whys of life.

                                                              << Yet life,
                                                              > consciousness and the availability of choice are the three most
                                                              > obviously real phenomenons we experience. >>

                                                              Hmmm. Maybe. I'd have to really think hard about those 3. If we
                                                              concede that somehow those 3 are the most obvious things we percieve- so
                                                              what? What sort of problem does this present for you? Yes, we are
                                                              living beings, conscious beings, why shouldn't life and consciousness be
                                                              among the most obvious things we percieve? Choice? -well, that's
                                                              another thing- but I don't see why any of this is in any way unexpected
                                                              -or that it has any relevance to theism or atheism, science or
                                                              superstition.

                                                              > Life is choice. Without choice there is no life with choice there is
                                                              > life. >>

                                                              Nope. As Randy pointed out, most life goes along just fine with no
                                                              choice involved. HUMANS may be faced and aware of a series of choices
                                                              in our lives, but it is in no way and integral part of life in general.
                                                              The vast majority of living things never make a single choice. Ever.

                                                              <<Choice repeated consistently constitutes law. There is no
                                                              > discernable difference between a choice consistently made and a
                                                              physical
                                                              > law. >>

                                                              No. I'd say this is completely wrong. Absolutely untrue. Rocks fall
                                                              down a mountain not up because of the law of gravity. Not a single rock
                                                              ponders it's choice of up or down.

                                                              << To possess choice logically requires there be a right choice and a
                                                              > wrong one. >>

                                                              Again: of course not. Many choices are far more complex than that and
                                                              are simply a matter of opinion. Many choices are neutral in outcome
                                                              with regard to 'right' or 'wrong.' I chose to have a a banana rather
                                                              than an apple for breakfast- objectively, was that a right or wrong
                                                              decision? hmm? You seem to just be making this stuff up now
                                                              without bothering to think about what you're saying. Are you repeating
                                                              uncritically what you heard elsewhere or are you creating this stuff
                                                              yourself?

                                                              << This demands the existence of God and it also tells us that
                                                              > those who follow God act as they ought and those who do not will of
                                                              > necessity be acting badly. >>

                                                              Complete baloney. None of that follows. Your past few premises have
                                                              been wrong and now you draw a bizarre, non-sequitur conclusion from
                                                              them.

                                                              << This actually creates a measureable
                                                              > (scientific) difference. So we have a choice because we are alive. We
                                                              > can act as we ought according to the moral laws of God or as we will
                                                              > based on justifications that do not truly square with reality.
                                                              > >

                                                              But the problem here, Robert, is that none of what you say here squares
                                                              with reality AT ALL. This is just cheap, superficial theology, where
                                                              you actually start with your pre-ordained conclusion, stated here at the
                                                              end of your message. All the stuff before is some sort of backfill to
                                                              try and justify the necessity of your premeditated conclusion. The
                                                              conclusion is just stuff you have been told by religious 'authorities'
                                                              and the backfill is often just plain wrong and non-sensical. Even if
                                                              it were true it wouldn't lead to the conclusion you pretend.

                                                              Sorry. I'm willing to listen to your further explanations and
                                                              arguments, but you're not off to a very promising start here. Please,
                                                              if you would, address Randy and my points on this.

                                                              Thanks!

                                                              Eric







                                                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                            • Dave Oldridge
                                                              ... It is men who developed science. One can, of course (and I do), argue that God created a universe such that science is a fruitful way of investigating its
                                                              Message 30 of 30 , Feb 23, 2011
                                                                On 18/02/2011 4:52 AM, Randy C wrote:
                                                                >>> Zack S:
                                                                >>> Creationism and science do not clash. Remember, of
                                                                >>> course, that God created science!!!!!
                                                                >>>
                                                                >
                                                                >> Dave O:
                                                                >> Your wilful ignorance is showing.
                                                                >>
                                                                > Randy C:
                                                                > It is utterly preposterous to claim that God created
                                                                > science! You can believe that God created the natural
                                                                > world if you care to, but you can't believe that God
                                                                > created the methodology that HUMANS use to study that
                                                                > natural world.
                                                                >
                                                                > Even Answers in Genesis agrees with me. On the web page
                                                                > at http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/what-is-science
                                                                > titled "What Is Science Is?", AIG provides this explanation:
                                                                >
                                                                > "Many people do not realize that science was actually
                                                                > developed in Christian Europe by men who assumed that
                                                                > God created an orderly universe. "
                                                                >
                                                                > Note the words "by men". It doesn't say "by God". It says
                                                                > "by men".
                                                                >
                                                                > So even mainstream Young Earth creationists don't make the
                                                                > silly, juvenile claim that God created science.
                                                                >
                                                                > Clearly Zack has no idea what science is.
                                                                >
                                                                > But Zack seems to be clueless about everything.
                                                                >
                                                                >
                                                                >
                                                                It is men who developed science. One can, of course (and I do), argue
                                                                that God created a universe such that science is a fruitful way of
                                                                investigating its workings.



                                                                --
                                                                Dave Oldridge
                                                                Skype: daveoldridge
                                                                Ham Radio: VA7CZ

                                                                ----------

                                                                Scanned with AntiVir MailGuard v10.0.1.38 AVE 8.2.4.170 VDF 7.11.3.207

                                                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.